I notice that in Australia many millions of litres of 'grape juice' are in 'storage'. Is it that if we grow more of any 'food commodity' than can be consumed locally and sold readily as 'export', be it of pears, oranges, apples, grapes or other 'food crop' that the solution is to ‘complain' about being unable to sell them, petition for export market expansion or policy to 'regulate' importation?
Shouldn’t this Nation of Australia, the "greatest primary producer in this region of the world(?)" be trying much harder to turn these newly unprofitable (being NOW too commonly undertaken 'internally' in the new 'developing markets') agricultural 'pastimes', and the effort within that entire ozi whine' be directed more firmly into the production of bio-fuel oils? Australia grows Canola, Soya, Wheat and Sugar Cane & Beet; ‘We’ can grow MORE of these if needed, but there should be more to agronomical effort NOW than ‘food’, NOW the future for agronomy is FUEL.
Current technology, unaltered, can use a 20% bio-oil/diesel mix as fuel, will Australia wait till its export of gas is also lost before those proffering ‘greenhouse opinion’ are overlooked for those proffering reality? It is NOT the 'combustion process' that is at fault, but the FUELS. There does NOT need be any ‘radical’ solution, in these situations ‘radical’ confers ‘DELAY’, not superiority in remediation. Too much NEW 'infrastructure & technology' is always within the 'LEAD time to LARGE SCALE USE' of ‘radical’ remediations, so simply put there is too much ‘future gazing’ within the ‘alternate/renewable’ platforming.
Notice the quote attributed to Rudolph Diesel from 1912:- ["The use of vegetable oils for engine fuels may seem insignificant today. But such oils may become in course of time as important as petroleum and the coal tar products of the present time."]
Well the COURSE of 'time' has led to NOW and we already HAVE the technology to use these CLEAN bio-fuel oils.
The ‘greatest Agronomical Economy’ COULD become the greatest non-fossil FUEL producer with 'Vegetable Oil' fuelling our Train and Truck ‘Long Distance Haulage Industry’, and also our Personal Hybrid Electric/Multifuel vehicles (closer NOW than ever to being 'real')...Or we can continue to ‘whine’ about too much grape juice (as just one example), whilst this 'excess juice' is itself being transported 'to storage', all 'fuelled' by (fossil derived) Dieseline fuel oil.
Realise that for PETROLEUM reliant, spark ignition process engines (whose fuel is also transported by 'oil fuelled', 'compression process' engined vehicles) at the centre of a (persistent) ‘price scare’ that 'time of the FUTURE' is on course for near NOW (as seen by the ‘father of the compression process’) and is closer now than ever.
[“How is biodiesel beneficial for the environment? => Pure biodiesel (B100) has the ability to reduce the overall emissions of your vehicle by 40% - 50% and greenhouse emissions specifically by up to 73%. There is a dramatic drop in many of the contaminants that are present in petroleum diesel such as carbon dioxide, methane, unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, sulphur and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, many of which are a cause of cancer and emphysema.”]
We do not need 'radical' remediation at all, there is no need for 'fuel cell' electricity (except for the 'battery potential)' as light storage cells) nor ethanol as 'We' do NOT need to 'spark ignition' process that requires these persistently mentioned 'future replacement' technologies in the manner presently mooted for ‘their’ use. “We’ all need ‘social engineering’ even LESS, it is simply the ‘scape goat’ used to veneer over the REAL lack of performance of the ‘renewable’ technologies.
There is already very able technology right 'here & now', already WIDELY used and PROVEN, 'We' simply need to STOP 'running in circles whilst shouting loudly' and do what was suggested near 100 years ago, start using Bio-Oil in our compression based engine processes (Diesel and Turbine). There isn't any need to continue use of the spark ignition process and Petroleum, the smaller personal vehicle having better 'future proofing' for design/manufacture if able to impliment smaller hybrid 'bio-fuelled' diesel/turbine electric propulsion.
Your’s,
Peter K Anderson aka Hartlod™
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
4 comments:
The reality observed, and the productions of 'novels & movies' aThe reality observed, and the productions of 'novels & movies' attempting to 'outline a renewable position', are NOT at all related. There is NOT, for example, any ability for 'solar cells' on rooftops to supply ENOUGH Electricity, there never will be. Also dragging on the 'climate heels' are all the other 'attached platforms', very few (if any) that have produced any REAL advance outside of improvements to ADVOCACY METHODOLOGY (with 'post graduate diploma courses' being proffered even) which includes the "Hydrogen lobby'. These 'trained advocates' will however be steeping out to face reality increasingly, NOT 'policy' committees. Those attempting to (as example) 'foist' supposed 'renewables concepts' will need to realise the lack of practicality in their 'opinion production', which is presently observed. As example, Wind power produces 15 Mw (from two utilities) in NSW, HYDRO accounts for 380 Mw (but water limits could reduce this) whilst even a SMALL, single Turbine in the Coal Fuelled Eraring Utility produces 600 Mw (in a 1985 vintage utility). SO the REALITY is that 'renewable' generation would be unable to even REPLACE the dwindling ability to use limited Hydro utilities just within the SCA systems.
The ENTIRE 'Snowy Scheme' has a potential to produce 3750 Mw (water release dependant), compared to the 'cutback' Eraring Utility (now ~2700 Mw 'from Coal'), but water release (just presently 100 Gigalitres below inflow already) cutback could see REAL Electrical generation output reduced. This water release in its 'downstream' irrigational usage is also begin given treatment in increase efficiency in use, but it is unlikely outflow can be reduced anyway whilst Electrical Generations is dependant on such. The "Snowy Hydro Corporation' is ALREADY partnering others in production of Gas fuelled Utilities.
NSW will need either to upgrade Eraring to near its ORIGINAL design (~6000 Mw) with Coal Fuelling, or install Gas utilities in the 400 to 600 Mw range, or install Uranium fuelled utilities (from 200 Mw it seems). This is as the State of NSW is already showing the 'signature' of inadequate Generation levels, persistent 'Brown Outs' and 'seasonal' Black outs. There is ALSO the very STRONG indication that DESALINATION will be required and there is NOW too little Electrical Generation to facilitate such a necessary process. The Law Courts (in NSW) have recently decided to make a fixed $80 immediately payable to those suffering a 'electrical black out' of supply persistent for more than 5 (consecutive?) hours (from memory) to speed/streamline compensation of the EXPECTED problems.
There is too little Electrical Generation, is it useful to produce a pre-emptive Legal platform for 'Black-out Compensation', or simply begin to build more Generation Capacity? There is too little water inflow to catchment and too little Electricity to desalinate or even perhaps power the advocated 'recycling policy', yet the only 'policy' is to encourage use of more 'rain water tanks' (for which rain is needed... in a drought?), increased use of 'more efficient' light bulbs and 'low-flow' shower heads. All this along side a 'policy dream' based in the rhetoric of 'renewable/recycle' 'gurus', for a 'recycling' scheme that in a decades time MIGHT remediate the PRESENT decline in water Nett inflow to catchment? Still however neither any plan to produce a real Nett inflow of water OR sufficient Electricity...all policy from the 'green house / sustainable' advocate 'policy dreaming team'.
The 'policy dreaming team' have also had produced a very pretty series of Television 'advertisement' placements attempting to 'talk up' their 'policy' as suggested to the present NSW government (as example). If you alter the 'city/state/ labels this SAME situation is seen regularly repeated 'NOW', yet still the 'politics' is attempted to overplay the SCIENCE and ENGINEERING required for REAL and PRACTICAL remediations to the REAL problem processes. California is ALREADY experiencing persistent BLACKOUTS, to the level that 'comedy roasts' on TV are lampooning the 'renewable' efforts and suggesting the return of STEAM power. This REAL PROBLEM situation was created by ADVOCACY of the supposed 'greenhouse effect' by those platforming policy of 'recycle/renewable' for Energy with opinioned 'experts opinion' to 'back up' the advocacy. Today such 'policy' is 'supported' and advocated still by OPINION in MOVIES and BOOKS but there is still NO TANGIBLE reason to express CONFIDENCE in the practicalities. In other words, ADVOCATES trained in POLITICAL PROCESS have NOT 'produced the goods' and seem unable to even NOTICE this paucity behind their (disassociated) OPINIONS, not matter HOW those opinions are platformed OR perhaps the attempt to 'increase the gloss' is their response to their 'abject failure to produce tangibles'...
As I have mentioned in numerous ways, the age of Uranium is riding aboard the "Greenhouse wagon' in the 'front seat'. I noticed recently 'reports' of the USA beginning to plan the production of Uranium Fuelled power generation Utilities. Here in Australia the 'green minority' attempts to label such as 'Nuclear Power', denouncing the use of such generation systems making Australia a "Nuclear Power", and they wonder why few are continuing to listen. Uranium fuelled power is FAST to install, there is NOT a need for constant transport of FUEL (as in Coal, Gas or Oil) to the utility. The effective POWER generation is HIGH and safe. France has used Uranium fir over one HALF the national power generation for DECADES as example.
At the 'end of the day' the PEOPLE expect Water and Electricity, and the Government that is IN will NEED to provide such REGARDLESS of 'advocated opinions'. It is TIME for those ADVOCATING the existence of a 'greenhouse effect/threat' realise the REAL danger their (ill founded) ADVOCACY is producing, and the futility of garnering 'TALKING HEADS' to front 'movie/book' productions that are little more than 'political campaigns', NOT the production of SCIENCE.
Which brings us back to the comments on 'political positions'. There is NOT possible a 'greenhouse effect' as the 'greenhouse theory' itself is FLAWED and unable to outline a VALID process in a VALID manner. Continued attempts to platform a 'greenhouse threat' within and by Political Advocacy that is devoid of SCIENCE is leading to the path of Uranium, which IS very REAL. The more protracted the 'greenhouse muttering', the MORE certain is the use of Uranium going to be, as when the lights start to dim, there will NOT be time to say 'NO' even. Time to heed less the 'climate prophets' and their 'greenhouse doom' rhetoric and avoid Uranium by using Gas &/or Coal NOW whilst there is the 'time' to construct the required fuel delivery infrastructure also.
Your's,
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.comttempting to 'outline a renewable position', are NOT at all related. There is NOT, for example, any ability for 'solar cells' on rooftops to supply ENOUGH Electricity, there never will be. Also dragging on the 'climate heels' are all the other 'attached platforms', very few (if any) that have produced any REAL advance outside of improvements to ADVOCACY METHODOLOGY (with 'post graduate diploma courses' being proffered even) which includes the "Hydrogen lobby'. These 'trained advocates' will however be steeping out to face reality increasingly, NOT 'policy' committees. Those attempting to (as example) 'foist' supposed 'renewables concepts' will need to realise the lack of practicality in their 'opinion production', which is presently observed. As example, Wind power produces 15 Mw (from two utilities) in NSW, HYDRO accounts for 380 Mw (but water limits could reduce this) whilst even a SMALL, single Turbine in the Coal Fuelled Eraring Utility produces 600 Mw (in a 1985 vintage utility). SO the REALITY is that 'renewable' generation would be unable to even REPLACE the dwindling ability to use limited Hydro utilities just within the SCA systems.
The ENTIRE 'Snowy Scheme' has a potential to produce 3750 Mw (water release dependant), compared to the 'cutback' Eraring Utility (now ~2700 Mw 'from Coal'), but water release (just presently 100 Gigalitres below inflow already) cutback could see REAL Electrical generation output reduced. This water release in its 'downstream' irrigational usage is also begin given treatment in increase efficiency in use, but it is unlikely outflow can be reduced anyway whilst Electrical Generations is dependant on such. The "Snowy Hydro Corporation' is ALREADY partnering others in production of Gas fuelled Utilities.
NSW will need either to upgrade Eraring to near its ORIGINAL design (~6000 Mw) with Coal Fuelling, or install Gas utilities in the 400 to 600 Mw range, or install Uranium fuelled utilities (from 200 Mw it seems). This is as the State of NSW is already showing the 'signature' of inadequate Generation levels, persistent 'Brown Outs' and 'seasonal' Black outs. There is ALSO the very STRONG indication that DESALINATION will be required and there is NOW too little Electrical Generation to facilitate such a necessary process. The Law Courts (in NSW) have recently decided to make a fixed $80 immediately payable to those suffering a 'electrical black out' of supply persistent for more than 5 (consecutive?) hours (from memory) to speed/streamline compensation of the EXPECTED problems.
There is too little Electrical Generation, is it useful to produce a pre-emptive Legal platform for 'Black-out Compensation', or simply begin to build more Generation Capacity? There is too little water inflow to catchment and too little Electricity to desalinate or even perhaps power the advocated 'recycling policy', yet the only 'policy' is to encourage use of more 'rain water tanks' (for which rain is needed... in a drought?), increased use of 'more efficient' light bulbs and 'low-flow' shower heads. All this along side a 'policy dream' based in the rhetoric of 'renewable/recycle' 'gurus', for a 'recycling' scheme that in a decades time MIGHT remediate the PRESENT decline in water Nett inflow to catchment? Still however neither any plan to produce a real Nett inflow of water OR sufficient Electricity...all policy from the 'green house / sustainable' advocate 'policy dreaming team'.
The 'policy dreaming team' have also had produced a very pretty series of Television 'advertisement' placements attempting to 'talk up' their 'policy' as suggested to the present NSW government (as example). If you alter the 'city/state/ labels this SAME situation is seen regularly repeated 'NOW', yet still the 'politics' is attempted to overplay the SCIENCE and ENGINEERING required for REAL and PRACTICAL remediations to the REAL problem processes. California is ALREADY experiencing persistent BLACKOUTS, to the level that 'comedy roasts' on TV are lampooning the 'renewable' efforts and suggesting the return of STEAM power. This REAL PROBLEM situation was created by ADVOCACY of the supposed 'greenhouse effect' by those platforming policy of 'recycle/renewable' for Energy with opinioned 'experts opinion' to 'back up' the advocacy. Today such 'policy' is 'supported' and advocated still by OPINION in MOVIES and BOOKS but there is still NO TANGIBLE reason to express CONFIDENCE in the practicalities. In other words, ADVOCATES trained in POLITICAL PROCESS have NOT 'produced the goods' and seem unable to even NOTICE this paucity behind their (disassociated) OPINIONS, not matter HOW those opinions are platformed OR perhaps the attempt to 'increase the gloss' is their response to their 'abject failure to produce tangibles'...
As I have mentioned in numerous ways, the age of Uranium is riding aboard the "Greenhouse wagon' in the 'front seat'. I noticed recently 'reports' of the USA beginning to plan the production of Uranium Fuelled power generation Utilities. Here in Australia the 'green minority' attempts to label such as 'Nuclear Power', denouncing the use of such generation systems making Australia a "Nuclear Power", and they wonder why few are continuing to listen. Uranium fuelled power is FAST to install, there is NOT a need for constant transport of FUEL (as in Coal, Gas or Oil) to the utility. The effective POWER generation is HIGH and safe. France has used Uranium fir over one HALF the national power generation for DECADES as example.
At the 'end of the day' the PEOPLE expect Water and Electricity, and the Government that is IN will NEED to provide such REGARDLESS of 'advocated opinions'. It is TIME for those ADVOCATING the existence of a 'greenhouse effect/threat' realise the REAL danger their (ill founded) ADVOCACY is producing, and the futility of garnering 'TALKING HEADS' to front 'movie/book' productions that are little more than 'political campaigns', NOT the production of SCIENCE. Which brings us back to the comments in post 9 referring to 'political positions'. There is NOT possible a 'greenhouse effect' as the 'greenhouse theory' itself is FLAWED and unable to outline a VALID process in a VALID manner. Continued attempts to platform a 'greenhouse threat' within and by Political Advocacy that is devoid of SCIENCE is leading to the path of Uranium, which IS very REAL.
The more protracted the 'greenhouse muttering', the MORE certain is the use of Uranium going to be, as when the lights start to dim, there will NOT be time to say NO even'. Time to heed less the 'climate prophets' and their 'greenhouse doom' rhetoric and avoid Uranium by using Gas &/or Coal NOW with time to construct the required fuel delivery inrustructure.
Your's,
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
There is much less to be made of 'fuel ethanol' than the 'effort to talk it up' prefers 'others' to notice.
It is also needing to be realised that it is the 'spark ignition process' that IS the issue here and NOT the fuel when Ethanol/Petroleum volume is considered as it is the spark ignition process that required Ethanol initially, and it was THIS demand being led by increased usage of the spark ignition process that led to the production of PETROLEUM to begin with.
To reduce the need for PETROLEUM the easiest remediation is to REDUCE the use of the spark ignition process, and revert to the Compression based Combustion process that was our FUTURE even in the early 20th Century. Now that future CAN be realised (near 100 years after the technology began development) as NOW agronomical technology can have sufficient Bio-Fuel Oil produced and such 'Fuel Oil' (from whatever Bio-source) only need combust spontaneously when infected/atomised into air compressed at ~14 atmospheres and (thus) 'heated' into the range of 700 to 900 degrees Fahrenheit in the 'combustion chamber'.
Due to the 'low rev' torque of the Compression process engine design, the often mentioned and 'alternative technology' lobby proposed 'small vehicle' is NOT necessarily 'more efficient', and is as such not a 'required' part of 'our future'. The overall of vehicles can be lowered to increase 'fuel use efficiency', but a larger bodied vehicles with a 'Diesel' or Turbine 'Engine' CAN deliver good efficiency still if the DRIVER uses the 'accelerator' wisely. It is NOT the size of the vehicle that is relevant to efficiency, but the 'Sprung Mass' and the MANNER that the vehicle is driven IN. As such developed drive train technology producing a semi-auto or Constant Velocity gearing system will remove from the 'driver' an attachment to the 'throttle', and 'attach Human input' to the 'gear-system'. The VEHICLE will determine what is NEEDED by considering the DRIVER INPUT to the 'gear-system' and the VEHICLE will alter engine conditions AND gearing to the 'Human input' as required.
If required, Legislated 'programme behavior' will produce vehicle performance to minimise fuel use AND thus regulate emissions whilst delivering 'driving ease'. If one want to 'hear the power' one can have the onboard sound system synthesise that noise. Personally I like quite 'cars' so as to 'arrive' with a relaxed attitude, but if you wish to install that 'audiophile car sound' system, then a 'quite car' would be better also and ALL this in a vehicle with a 'Body Size and Conformation' of a present day 'SUV', but with a much 'lighter' 'sprung mass'. It is that 'We' do not need even the Technology the requires Petroleum OR Ethanol anymore, let alone these fuels as such.
As with many 'energy efficiency' programmes (including that presented as 'Public Policy these days in NSW, as example), it is overlooked that the replacement for 'incandescent bulbs' is by illumination that generally is 'cheaper' ONLY when it is being used, and in which 'initiation of illumination' uses more energy again so in those situation where the illumination will be used for short periods regularly, incandescent is still the most efficient. The amount of 'heat' produced from the incandescent glass bulb (the 'wire; is not always now in a vacuum, just within a low pressurised bulb of 'inert gas') can be reduced by using a lower watt globe (25 to 40 watt is generally sufficient) whilst avoiding the 'frosted glass' bulbs, especially in higher wattage (60 or 75 as example), that 'soft light' IS at a 'lumen cost'.
That Wind power is simply unable to generate a base load for a National Scale power distribution grid is well understood. The situation is amply demonstrated here in NSW (Australia) where a major State power company produces 2700 Mw from Coal, 380 Mw from 'Hydro' (with some 'continuance' doubt due to potential regulation of future water release) and (only) 15 MW from TWO 'Wind Utilities'. The supposition and opinion from the 'renewable platform/lobbies' of 'technological ability' is NOT being observed in the PRACTICAL efforts that a presented WHEN that 'lobby' is 'given its chance', even after 20 years of 'opinionation'. If Uranium use IS to be minimised, then it WILL be required to being installation of Gas, and Coal Utilities ASAP, as 'changing light bulbs strategy' is NOT in any manner more than 'public policy dreaming'.
With the State of California (USA) already reporting power 'blackouts' so often that the situation is being 'spoofed' in 'comic presentations' mentioning the reversion to STEAM, and the State of NSW (Australia) seemingly taking its 'public energy/water policy' from the same 'Climate Novels' used as 'reference' in California, is reported as preparing for MORE 'blackouts' by stream-lining 'blackout damage' payout procedures, 'We all' need to ask WHEN the 'alternative energy lobbies' will notice their disassociation FROM reality (and the REAL abilities of the technologies they platform) and cease simply attempting to justify themselves from behind the EQUALLY disassociated 'greenhouse façade'.
Your's,
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
There is much less to be made of 'fuel ethanol' than the effort to 'talk it up' likes others to notice. It is also needing to be realised that it is the 'spark ignition process' that IS the issue here and NOT the fuel when Ethanol/Petroleum volume is considered as it is the spark ignition process that required Ethanol initially, and it was THIS demand being led by increased usage of the spark ignition process that led to the production of PETROLEUM to begin with.
To reduce the need for PETROLEUM the easiest remediation is to REDUCE the use of the spark ignition process, and revert to the Compression based Combustion process that was our FUTURE even in the early 20th Century. Now that future CAN be realised (near 100 years after the technology began development) as NOW agronomical technology can have sufficient Bio-Fuel Oil produced and such 'Fuel Oil' (from whatever Bio-source) only need combust spontaneously when infected/atomised into air compressed at ~14 atmospheres and (thus) 'heated' into the range of 700 to 900 degrees Fahrenheit in the 'combustion chamber'.
Due to the 'low rev' torque of the Compression process engine design, the often mentioned and 'alternative technology' lobby proposed 'small vehicle' is NOT necessarily 'more efficient', and is as such not a 'required' part of 'our future'. The overall of vehicles can be lowered to increase 'fuel use efficiency', but a larger bodied vehicles with a 'Diesel' or Turbine 'Engine' CAN deliver good efficiency still if the DRIVER uses the 'accelerator' wisely. It is NOT the size of the vehicle that is relevant to efficiency, but the 'Sprung Mass' and the MANNER that the vehicle is driven IN. As such developed drive train technology producing a semi-auto or Constant Velocity gearing system will remove from the 'driver' an attachment to the 'throttle', and 'attach Human input' to the 'gear-system'. The VEHICLE will determine what is NEEDED by considering the DRIVER INPUT to the 'gear-system' and the VEHICLE will alter engine conditions AND gearing to the 'Human input' as required.
If required, Legislated 'programme behavior' will produce vehicle performance to minimise fuel use AND thus regulate emissions whilst delivering 'driving ease'. If one want to 'hear the power' one can have the onboard sound system synthesise that noise. Personally I like quite 'cars' so as to 'arrive' with a relaxed attitude, but if you wish to install that 'audiophile car sound' system, then a 'quite car' would be better also and ALL this in a vehicle with a 'Body Size and Conformation' of a present day 'SUV', but with a much 'lighter' 'sprung mass'. It is that 'We' do not need even the Technology the requires Petroleum OR Ethanol anymore, let alone these fuels as such.
As with many 'energy efficiency' programmes (including that presented as 'Public Policy these days in NSW, as example), it is overlooked that the replacement for 'incandescent bulbs' is by illumination that generally is 'cheaper' ONLY when it is being used, and in which 'initiation of illumination' uses more energy again so in those situation where the illumination will be used for short periods regularly, incandescent is still the most efficient. The amount of 'heat' produced from the incandescent glass bulb (the 'wire; is not always now in a vacuum, just within a low pressurised bulb of 'inert gas') can be reduced by using a lower watt globe (25 to 40 watt is generally sufficient) whilst avoiding the 'frosted glass' bulbs, especially in higher wattage (60 or 75 as example), that 'soft light' IS at a 'lumen cost'.
That Wind power is simply unable to generate a base load for a National Scale power distribution grid is well understood. The situation is amply demonstrated here in NSW (Australia) where a major State power company produces 2700 Mw from Coal, 380 Mw from 'Hydro' (with some 'continuance' doubt due to potential regulation of future water release) and (only) 15 MW from TWO 'Wind Utilities'. The supposition and opinion from the 'renewable platform/lobbies' of 'technological ability' is NOT being observed in the PRACTICAL efforts that a presented WHEN that 'lobby' is 'given its chance', even after 20 years of 'opinionation'. If Uranium use IS to be minimised, then it WILL be required to being installation of Gas, and Coal Utilities ASAP, as 'changing light bulbs strategy' is NOT in any manner more than 'public policy dreaming'.
With the State of California (USA) already reporting power 'blackouts' so often that the situation is being 'spoofed' in 'comic presentations' mentioning the reversion to STEAM, and the State of NSW (Australia) seemingly taking its 'public energy/water policy' from the same 'Climate Novels' used as 'reference' in California, is reported as preparing for MORE 'blackouts' by stream-lining 'blackout damage' payout procedures, 'We all' need to ask WHEN the 'alternative energy lobbies' will notice their disassociation FROM reality (and the REAL abilities of the technologies they platform) and cease simply attempting to justify themselves from behind the EQUALLY disassociated 'greenhouse façade'.
Your's,
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
(* PS: This was posted in a site, presenting itself as 'authoritive in energy matters & 'unnamed' for NOW, to start discussion but it seems the only effort made to date is to produce censorship. It seems 'the few' are unable to answer so many easy questions in any way OTHER than with censorship and avoidance. Perhaps it can/will be discussed here...)
There seems effort to validate a 'remediation' simply with 'opinion linked to CO2 emissions' of power plants (coal burning) and automobiles (using the 'spark ignition' process) burning petroleum, both specifically mentioned in the situation I comment on here. The mentioned 'belief', to 'reduce the C02 emissions from both sources' with an aside to reducing dependence on 'foreign oil' (within the USA), is with energy policy citing 'Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles' ('PHEV' vehicles are conventional hybrid vehicles that have additional batteries and 'mains charging circuitry', it seems). The 'justification' made involves a 'statistic' mentioned as ["that 40% of power generation capacity sits idle during the night"] with the following allusion of ["This is a huge amount of capacity that could be used to charge millions of vehicles. So the capacity to convert to 'PHEV' on a large scale already exists with the current electrical grid."].
The "40% of capacity" unused 'over night' persistently allows for off-peak maintenance schedules, otherwise needing to be run in what would become a near constant Peak Load condition set. Also overall pollution would rise. Realise that 'utilities' generally are designed with an 'optimum output' planned (with this not being the MAXIMUM rated output potential), and with overlapping utility coverage facilitated so to supply into a (National) Power grid and under PEAK LOAD capacity in a sustainable condition akin to "FULL AHEAD", whilst best efficiency is 'CRUISE SPEED' for 'off peak' where in the more enlightened Nations (like Australia) generally offer lower prices for produced electricity to encourage use as a consumer advantage. The mention of there being ["a number of companies in California"] already converting vehicles to 'PHEVs' seems also to have NOT noticed that there is already insufficient Electrical Generation in the State of California. Some who have travelled there tell me of Retail Stores having organised 'lock down/up' policies for the common (by 'developed attitudes' of reaction) blackouts occurring, limiting stealing by locking customers IN. No 'mains power' makes for a very useless 'PHEV'....
Biofuels are the future and there is especially NOT any 'greenhouse concern' involved any REAL remediation of an actual, existent problem. Pollution will be reduced significantly without any 'demand for social alterations' in driving or travel needing to be heeded, by altering the 'engines' used in too many 'personal vehicles' from a 'spark ignition process' towards the 'compression processes with bio fuel(oils)'. There will also NOT be made heed to demands from 'the few' for 'higher fuel taxes', infact as prices rise in the short term so to control of Economic forces is seeing calls for reduction of taxes (at least in the 'percentage') being heeded.
Nor can 'coal utilities' be removed, especially if "PHEVs" are to be 'used', there is little apart from Uranium that can otherwise fuel the required production of Electricity. Certainly WIND FARMS cannot do so and are not capable regardless of OPINION to the contrary, this ascertained by observation of established systems indicated the REAL (lack) of ability for these Wind Farms. Wind farms producing a rated 20 MW input even less to the grid after rectification and so cannot be used to replace 1000MW inputs otherwise 'not needing' such rectification for placement to the Distribution Grid system. There is not any need for 'denser living', nor for 'the people' to be crowded about 'mass transit lanes'. Infact people seemly NOT do wish to do this, and thus it is pointless to demand they do so. It is especially pointless to demand such alterations with only justification being from 'supposition of greenhouse doom and woe'...or 'peak oil opinion' rhetoric.
Biofuels are the fuel of the future, it is that Humanity has had the 'technology of the future' for near 100 years and has forgotten 'the past'. There is no need for specific 'new engine design' even, the Turbine and 'Diesel process' are all in wide use AND have good multi-fuel (oil) abilities, even ethanol/methanol can be combusted. Notice the quote attributed to Rudolph Diesel from 1912:- ["The use of vegetable oils for engine fuels may seem insignificant today. But such oils may become in course of time as important as petroleum and the coal tar products of the present time."]
The COURSE of 'time' has led to NOW and we already HAVE the technology to use these CLEAN bio-fuel oils. The 'spark ignition process' was only engineered as 'compression process' engines at the turn of the 20th Century where too large for use in small vehicles. The COMPRESSION based combustion process is very friendly to the Multifuel situation and can NOW be built small enough for inclusion into even private personal vehicles. I notice in this weekends papers a 2.2 litre 4 cyl turbo Diesel with ~130kw, another (twin turbo 6 cyl) with ~150kw and both with ~(400+)nm 'of torque', with as well a hybrid diesel electric light-truck (with perhaps a slightly under powered electric drive still).
** "Australia isn't running on a "sheep's back", but in a 'Diesel' hauled trailer." **
Look at transport mechanisms, the 'Long Haul' Truck, the Train and Maritime propulsion systems. Realise the futility of attempting even to propagate use of the spark ignition process when the compression process is so deeply entrenched in the majority of use World Wide...
Your's,
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
The E.U. expends 40% of revenues in Agronomical subsidy often (literally) to not 'produce to market'. This practise is being rebirthed and then seen 'sold on' as 'Carbon Offset trade' schemes.
Now seen is Australian (Wheat) Farmers able to be PAID reverting Field to (Mallee) scrub, that removed initially to plant wheat, the SAME unsustainable practice as the E.U produces Now relabelled to sound 'profitable'.
These Australian farmers SHOULD instead be producing Biofuel Oil crop, not engaged in Environmentally futile 'ideological' and 'diversion' schemes of a 'Political' Organisation, be it the E.U. or some other.
It is easier to sell 'paper script' (without under written value) rather than remediate the Problem, until that 'Never Never' does inevitably arrive.
The Problem isn't 'unnatural change' to Climate either but the 'Political Campaigner' become dependant on 'Climate' to sustain a 'career'.
As the WASTE of Public Monies increases the REAL level of Fiscal Fraud attached becomes more onerous and the term 'organised crime' is closer to being used far more commonly in regard to the 'greenhouse game'.
Yours, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(TM)
Post a Comment